DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

capital gain of that year shall be\nrecomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by\nsuch Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the\nconsideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the\nnewly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance Act,\n2003

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

c) Para Rice Mills Kurukshetra Vs. CIT Karnala ITA No. 657 of 2009 4. The assessee Shri Amar Singh has also filed an affidavit regarding non receipt of the order of the CIT(A) which reads as under: I, Amar Sigh S/o Shri. Attar Singh resident of Villate Jaroda, Jagadhri do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

c) Para Rice Mills Kurukshetra Vs. CIT Karnala ITA No. 657 of 2009 4. The assessee Shri Amar Singh has also filed an affidavit regarding non receipt of the order of the CIT(A) which reads as under: I, Amar Sigh S/o Shri. Attar Singh resident of Villate Jaroda, Jagadhri do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

C of the Act is to be treated separately and it is not income from salary, house property, profit and gains from business or capital gain, nor it is income from other sources. No setoff is allowable against this income? 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue